City named most valuable football brand in the World. PL take note.

[KS55]

Note: Both UEFA and now the PL use “expert assessors” to put a number on fair market value on sponsorship for ffp. How do they do this? They can’t really tell you. (They actually just copy other similar deals)
PSG claimed that the worldwide branding value of Qatar’s tourist sponsorship was about £80m iirc. The experts put it at £9m, and M. Leterme put it at £100m. PSG passed ffp but UEFA appealed to CAS against their own decision! QED.

 

[jacko74]

How stupid must the PL feel being bullied by the red clubs to attack its most important stakeholder. The Club that is effectively promoting the PL Brand.

Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot. Utter spineless idiots.

Want to know where the money comes from PL? Have a read.

I'm guessing the red teams, united in particular with their 6 trillion armchair fans worldwide, are still the clubs who generate the most revenue for the broadcasters, which then filters down to the PL, FA etc, hence why the anti-City/pro-united agenda is still very much in place

 

[crazyg]

It’s like an episode of Dastardly & Mutley, they get so far ahead to set a trap that fails.

“Parry, do something……..”

As I've said before, we ARE Yankee Doodle pigeon.

 

[Blue Llama]

Ok, put a precise monetary number on the “brand value” of MCFC and tell us how you did it. Why is that number not in our balance sheet? All your statements may well be true, but that is not the issue.

You are not using my phrasing correctly. Tangible - as in capable of being perceived it does not mean having a exact figure. And it is the issue in respect of what I was saying. That sponsors are more likely to be associated with the best perceived brands. That's how the rags sqeezed silly money out of theirs.

 

[adr2.8i]

one of the regular arguments I had when I was on twatter was always "How can city be top of the financial table? U have no fans and can't even sell out the beheadihad"

The major thing is that we actually win things every year (mostly). Now call me a fanny but that brings income from not just prize money but sponsers, increased commercial opportunities etc....because believe it or not, companies want to invest in clubs that actually win things to promote their brand. Wow.

and then a red top would say, "yeah but we have 9 gazillion fans worldwide so we sell more shirts and pencil cases than u" but what these bells don't realise is, for one, money from shirts and tat is a tiny ammount for the clubs profit wise and that those armchair cheerleaders don't even buy those cases and beanie hats from the megastore, they buy knock off ones on dh gate like me and in the pop up markets on a Wednesday afternoon so none of that income goes to the club anyway. :-)

 

[adr2.8i]

These people that ask how can we bigger than Barca don’t realise nobody give a shit about them before Pep transformed. They were a big club, but globally no one gave a shit.

Messi made barca I'd say. Now he's gone, nobody gives a poop about them now. The kids are city and haaland now :-)

 

[blueste41]

It’s strange that Baconface and Joel Lasso handed out our medals. If they had won, would Summerbee and Khaldoon have handed them their medals?

Do you think they enjoyed doing it or Rags enjoyed watching them do it? I would have been mortified if Summerbee was forced to hand medals to Rag players!

 

[oakiecokie]

It’s strange that Baconface and Joel Lasso handed out our medals. If they had won, would Summerbee and Khaldoon have handed them their medals?

Absolute nonsense. They did NOT hand out the medals. Were you pissed up and didn`t recognise the next heir to the throne handing them out ??

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

one of the regular arguments I had when I was on twatter was always "How can city be top of the financial table? U have no fans and can't even sell out the beheadihad"

The major thing is that we actually win things every year (mostly). Now call me a fanny but that brings income from not just prize money but sponsers, increased commercial opportunities etc....because believe it or not, companies want to invest in clubs that actually win things to promote their brand. Wow.

and then a red top would say, "yeah but we have 9 gazillion fans worldwide so we sell more shirts and pencil cases than u" but what these bells don't realise is, for one, money from shirts and tat is a tiny ammount for the clubs profit wise and that those armchair cheerleaders don't even buy those cases and beanie hats from the megastore, they buy knock off ones on dh gate like me and in the pop up markets on a Wednesday afternoon so none of that income goes to the club anyway. :-)

Tv money is the driver, the more successful you are the more you are on tv. City have been in the champions league since 2011 whilst United and Liverpool struggle to qualify on a consistent basis, City have also made the last 8 since 2018 and more recently two finals and a semi final.

The academy is a money making machine which is why it is now receiving poison pen articles about how City are stockpiling players. The demand for tickets over the last 12 months has reached unprecedented levels, people want to see the superstar we have in Haaland alongside the great football we are playing at the moment. The Co-op Live Arena will boost our income even more, if they sell it out 3 nights a week it will be the equivalent of the new capacity of the stadium when it’s extended on a match day. Our execs and management have come up with ideas that they couldn’t dream of over at Old Trafford and Anfield, this is why they are so desperate to off load their clubs. As for their fans let them choke on their rage and bile, yes we have ruined football. However we have ruined football for two greedy, corrupt football clubs and their fan bases, they deserve it.

 

[KS55]

You are not using my phrasing correctly. Tangible - as in capable of being perceived it does not mean having an exact figure. And it is the issue in respect of what I was saying. That sponsors are more likely to be associated with the best perceived brands. That's how the rags sqeezed silly money out of theirs.

You still don’t quite get it. The report was an attempt to put a precise monetary value on the brand, so you can’t really just slough that off. It had nothing to do with the marketing benefits of branding such as companies wanting to be associated with well perceived brands. Do you really think that sponsoring companies decisions are about whether some agency has published a “brand value”?
I am quite well aware of what tangible means, why not read the report which is about that precise figure you keep suggesting is not at the heart of the report.
My position is similar to yours on the value of branding (it should be, I was a branding practitioner for 20 years) and how it works which is why my first post was poo-pooing the practice of putting a £ value on it; that value is, I posted, embedded in the P&L and the balance sheet.